Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prospective Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Global Argumentation Structures

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the nature of global argumentation structures of prospective middle school mathematics teachers in a technology enhanced environment. A qualitative case study was conducted with 8 participants from an Elementary Mathematics Education undergraduate program of one of the public universities in Ankara. Two implementations, 1 of which included 2 geometry tasks on triangles and another which included 2 geometry tasks based on circles, were conducted. Subsequently, global argumentation structures were revealed via data analysis. The findings indicated that the prospective middle school mathematics teachers resort frequently to simple global argumentation structures since their mathematical reasoning was insufficient. On the other hand, technology had a positive impact on argument construction and global argumentation structures of prospective middle school mathematics teachers. However, it was deduced that prospective middle school mathematics teachers need to be challenged on argumentation and about how to facilitate argumentation effectively in their future classroom experiences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children’s arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 135–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonini, S., & Martignone, F. (2011). Argumentation in exploring mathematical machines: A study on pantographs. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 41–48). Ankara, Turkey: Can Tekin Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceylan, T. (2012). Geogebra yazılımı ortamında ilköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının geometrik ispat biçimlerinin incelenmesi [Investigating geometry proof structures of prospective elementary mathematics teachers in GeoGebra environment] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ankara, Turkey: Ankara University.

  • Conner, A., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A., & Francisco, R. T. (2014). Identifying kinds of reasoning in collective argumentation. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16, 180–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coşkun, Ş. (2011). A multiple case study investigating the effects of technology on students’ visual and nonvisual thinking preferences: comparing paper-pencil and dynamic software based strategies of algebra word problems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida: University of Central Florida.

  • De Villiers, M. (2004). Using dynamic geometry to expand mathematics teachers’ understanding of proof. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 35(5), 703–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, G., & De Villiers, M. (2008). ICMI study 19: Proof and proving in mathematics education. ZDM––The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(2), 329–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P., & Simpson, A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iranzo Domènech, N. (2009). Influence of dynamic geometry software on plane geometry problem solving strategies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

  • Jones, K. (2002). Research on the use of dynamic geometry software: Implications for the classroom. Micromath, 18(3), 18–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knipping, C. (2008). A method for revealing structures of argumentations in classroom proving processes. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40(3), 427–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosko, K. W., Rougee, A., & Herbst, P. (2014). What actions do teachers envision when asked to facilitate mathematical argumentation in the classroom? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(3), 459–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229–269). Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mariotti, A. M. (2006). Proof and proving in mathematics education. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 173–204). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardi, E., Biza, I., & Zachariades, T. (2012). “Warrant” revisited: Integrating mathematics teachers’ pedagogical and epistemological considerations into Toulmin’s model for argumentation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 157–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedemonte, B., & Reid, D. (2011). The role of abduction in proving process. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76, 281–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posamentier, A. S., & Salkind, C. T. (1988). Challenging problems in geometry. New York, NY: Dover Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, D. A., & Knipping, C. (2010). Proof in mathematics education: Research, learning, and teaching. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strom, D., Kemeny, V., Lehrer, R., & Forman, E. (2001). Visualizing the emergent structure of children’s mathematical argument. Cognitive Science, 25(5), 733–773. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2505_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, J., Chick, H. & McCrae, B. (2005). Argumentation profile charts as tools for analysing students’ argumentations. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29 th PME Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 281–288). Melbourne, Australia: PME.

  • Walter, J. G., & Barros, T. (2011). Students build mathematical theory: Semantic warrants in argumentation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(3), 323–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, J., & Johnson, C. (2007). Linguistic invention and semantic warrant production: Elementary teachers’ interpretation of graphs. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 705–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, R. E. (2003). Designing problems to promote higher-order thinking. New directions for teaching and learning, 95, 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yackel, E., Ramussen, C., & King, K. (2000). Social and sociomathematical norms in an advanced undergraduate mathematic s course. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 275–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yemen-Karpuzcu, S., Ulusoy, F., & Işıksal-Bostan, M. (2017). Prospective middle school mathematics teachers’covariational reasoning for interpreting dynamic events during peer interactions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 89–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Mathematics and Science Education Department, İstanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Özlem Erkek

  2. Eğitim Fakültesi, Güney Yerleşke, İstanbul Medipol University, Göztepe mah. Atatürk Cad. No:40, A blok, 4. kat, Beykoz, Istanbul, Turkey

    Özlem Erkek

  3. Faculty of education, Mathematics and Science Education Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

    Mine Işıksal Bostan

  4. Eğitim Fakültesi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, EF-A 117, Üniversiteler Mh., Çankaya, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

    Mine Işıksal Bostan

Authors
  1. Özlem Erkek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mine Işıksal Bostan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Özlem Erkek.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Erkek, Ö., Işıksal Bostan, M. Prospective Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Global Argumentation Structures. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 17, 613–633 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9884-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9884-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation